DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972 | 1972-03-02 Daily Iowan Letter to the Editor: 'Herrnstein news distorted'

Transcribe
Translate

Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972

1972-03-02 Daily Iowan Letter to the Editor: 'Herrnstein news distorted'

DI
3/28/12
Herrnstein news distorted
To the editor: 
The article which appeared in the Feb 26 Des Moines Register concerning the lecture of Prf. Richard Herrnstein at the University os Iowa was completely unfounded and inaccurate...
...Not all of the people who came to question Herrnstein were members of S.D.S. as the article would lead us to believe. I for one, felt that Herrnstein's article in the September Atlantic Monthly may have far-reaching political and social consequences...
...Herrnstein has publiclystated he will not discuss the article. Not even Richard Nixon can make statements without being held responsible for their implications, why should Herrnstein be sacrosanct? His supposed intellectual position should not serve as a shield so that he may evade the social consequences. Herrnstein has a right to profess potential racist ideology, but he also has a responsability to defend them. 
S.D.S. did not have a monopoly on noise. The noise was distributed among those who wanted to hear Herrnstein speak about pigeons and those who were concerned about the article he wrote. 500 people did not come to hear Herrnstein speak about pigeons! A petition demanding Herrnstein defend his position was signed bt over 600 people.
The people who condemned Herrnstein's article repeatedly asked if anyone wanted to defend the article to please do so, but there was no response, except heckling. it is ironic that those who felt that Herrnstein's freedom of speech should be protected were the same ones who were trying to shout down the speakers before the lecture. All the action started an hour before Herrnstein's talk. The Register insinuated that there was a possibility of violence on the part of those opposing Herrnstein. The most disrupted act that occured was when some person felt morally obligated to rip down an anti-Herrnstein banner and several posters.
The attacks upon Herrnstein were directed on a verbal level, the presentations were rational criticism of his article which were frequently interrupted by a small minority who felt they were defending Herrnstein's freedom of speech by interferring with anothers freedom of speech, by defending someone who did not have the integrety to show his face. There was absolutely no physical confrontation. The security police, who showed up in large numbers were a slap in the face to the trust and respect of the student body.
Prof. Herrnstein chose not to speak. He evaded a dialogue on his article - is it possible he realizes the article is indefensible and blatantly in error? Herrnstein's failure to engage in a dialogue concerning his article was a victory not necessarily for S.D.S., but for racial equality.
Tim Hall
Hillcrest

Saving...

DI 3/28/12 Herrnstein news distorted To the editor: The article which appeared in the Feb 26 Des Moines Register concerning the lecture of Prf. Richard Herrnstein at the University os Iowa was completely unfounded and inaccurate... ...Not all of the people who came to question Herrnstein were members of S.D.S. as the article would lead us to believe. I for one, felt that Herrnstein's article in the September Atlantic Monthly may have far-reaching political and social consequences... ...Herrnstein has publiclystated he will not discuss the article. Not even Richard Nixon can make statements without being held responsible for their implications, why should Herrnstein be sacrosanct? His supposed intellectual position should not serve as a shield so that he may evade the social consequences. Herrnstein has a right to profess potential racist ideology, but he also has a responsability to defend them. S.D.S. did not have a monopoly on noise. The noise was distributed among those who wanted to hear Herrnstein speak about pigeons and those who were concerned about the article he wrote. 500 people did not come to hear Herrnstein speak about pigeons! A petition demanding Herrnstein defend his position was signed bt over 600 people. The people who condemned Herrnstein's article repeatedly asked if anyone wanted to defend the article to please do so, but there was no response, except heckling. it is ironic that those who felt that Herrnstein's freedom of speech should be protected were the same ones who were trying to shout down the speakers before the lecture. All the action started an hour before Herrnstein's talk. The Register insinuated that there was a possibility of violence on the part of those opposing Herrnstein. The most disrupted act that occured was when some person felt morally obligated to rip down an anti-Herrnstein banner and several posters. The attacks upon Herrnstein were directed on a verbal level, the presentations were rational criticism of his article which were frequently interrupted by a small minority who felt they were defending Herrnstein's freedom of speech by interferring with anothers freedom of speech, by defending someone who did not have the integrety to show his face. There was absolutely no physical confrontation. The security police, who showed up in large numbers were a slap in the face to the trust and respect of the student body. Prof. Herrnstein chose not to speak. He evaded a dialogue on his article - is it possible he realizes the article is indefensible and blatantly in error? Herrnstein's failure to engage in a dialogue concerning his article was a victory not necessarily for S.D.S., but for racial equality. Tim Hall Hillcrest